The sentence meted out on Edward Woollard, the 18 year old student who dropped a fire extinguisher form the roof of the Conservative Party HQ during the student fees protest, has sparked significant response in the media. “32 months imprisonment is unjust!” says one faction. “He deserves all he gets!” says another. My own thoughts have returned to this incident and the punishment numerous times.
Woollard was convicted of violent disorder, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. In terms of criminal justice, his punishment is, therefore, not excessive. So, why my concern?
The punishment would appear to fit the crime had it only been reported that, during the demonstration, which had turned increasingly violent, he ‘hurled an empty fire extinguisher from the roof of the seven-story building in the direction of the police where it landed within a few feet of the line of policemen protecting the building and the hundreds of protesters in the courtyard below.’
However, some media reports were less about sensationalism and more about stating facts. It is here that we come to know the extent of Woollards remorse.
"When I was told I had potentially endangered people, I felt sick." He said he had "lobbed it [the extinguisher] to go into a gap in the crowd below. I was absolutely not intending that anyone in anyway would be hurt. Very soon afterwards, I realised it was something I should not have done. I regret bitterly this act of madness." Immediately, he withdrew from the protest and was "shocked, dazed and horrified" at what he had done. He himself came forward to the police.
The judge referred to "the many fine references" which were submitted to testify to his previous good character: a young man with no previous convictions.
It is when we hear about the character that we can separate the person from the behaviour, the motivation behind the action from the action itself. It doesn’t mean that we condone the behaviour but that we are more likely to reach out to the person in order to contribute towards the process of ‘healing.’
Perhaps this is why I feel uncomfortable with the outcome of this case – when there is an understanding of the motive, the intention, there is an apparent discordance (in my mind) between the action and the punishment. When there exists already a high degree of contrition, when there is significant remorse, is a sentence of 32 months imprisonment the most suitable course of action? Will this best serve the needs of the young man and society?
What is the signal that is being given to young people by this sentence? Is it that violent behaviour will receive substantial punishment or is there another signal that is connected to the feeling that, actually, honesty doesn’t pay?
At a time when the new government is challenging the use of imprisonment and arguing that imprisonment should not continue to expand and in fact should contract, are the courts aligned to this way of thinking? Absolutely, there is a need to impose a period of time in which Woollard will reflect on his actions to the degree that, it is hoped, he will not travel that road again. However, what form should that take and for what period of time should that be for?
In responding to that question, we might check ourselves to know clearly our own motivation behind the punishment we would wish to see imposed..
